Program Review Committee
Friday, April 23, 2010
10:00 am – 12:00pm
Boardroom
Present: Cheryl Tucker, Cindy Hooper, Mike Peterson, Maggie Lynch, Rachel Anderson,
Todd Olsen, Anita Janis, Roxanne Metz, Karen Nelson, Crislyn Parker – recording
Absent: Keith Snow-Flamer, Steve Brown, Vinnie Peloso, Brady Reed, Hillary Reed,
Melody Pope, Marjorie Carson
1. Master Executive Summary:
1. Budget, Trends and Assessment Sub-Committee Report-outs
 Each subcommittee met and reviewed the executive summaries. Two of the three
groups formulated their responses in a table format; the third evaluated each
individually and prepared a narrative at the end.
2. Formulate Master Summary:
 It was agreed that the final master summary will be in table format. Budget and
Trends will be merged together and assessment then be added, by Friday, April 30th
meeting.
2. 2011 Calendar – Build (handout):
 The group discussed how to transition the program review process to spring. Ideas
included, during the first year, completing an addendum process in the fall, which
allows the committee to get budget information to deans in time for integrated
planning.
 For assessment, prepare a template, including goals and plans from the fall program
review. This template can also state whether goals are in process, completed, or
unmet; note the author of the program review, etc.
 Concerns were voiced that actual requests are in tear out sheets, and that if the
program review itself was more generic, it might require a lot of front end work. Also,
the faculty didn’t understand how to link requests to goals and plans.
 Some resolutions to this included providing the authors with the executive summaries,
i.e. “Based on the executive summary here is what you completed, what you need,
what is in progress.”
 By determining where to put items that were overlooked, it will become part of the
learning process – we have an executive summary, let’s utilize it better and improve it
in the upcoming year.
3. Integrated Planning Model (4/13/10~Ad Hoc Committee version)
Discuss Narrative (handout)
 Suggested again, that there is a Program Review committee member on each
integrated planning committee
 Process needs to be transparent to authors; what really happened and why;
prioritization is posted; budget spreadsheet and detail of what is being spent, what not
 Some kind of documentation of what was funded, what not; maybe a living document
 Determine the role of the budget committee and what level of detail is needed
 Suggested budget committee needs more faculty members
 Digression from topic: Suggestion to create addendum to relate to boxes in the
integrated planning model.
 Equipment and budget needs to be closely scrutinized – many authors did not include
requests or needs for items under $5000
 Definition of what is equipment, what is facility (again). Zach will clarify when he
makes changes to the template.
 Technology committee did look at such items as microscopes, even thought not really
technology needs; but these are items that seem to fall through cracks
 Another suggestion to create an online discussion for more feedback opportunity?
4. Other –Draft Graduate Survey
 Along with, or instead of, question 1, (what degree/certificate will you receive) ask
what student goals were
 Question 2 add “degree”
 Question 5: suggested to re-word for more detailed information; maybe break out into
several questions which include specific services
 Add a question 13: How long were you a student?
 Add a question 14: Were the classes offered timely and meet your needs?
 Suggestions about when and how to offer the survey to reap the greatest percentage of
completion.
 Discussion on what is the best scale for rating responses; suggested Likert scale.
Meeting Adjourned